On Friday, January 17, 2014 4:23:25 PM UTC-5, Keith Henson wrote: > > "Social change" means to the advocates enforcing what they see as > frugal morality on people, though, of course, never on the advocates. > We on the technical fix side tend in the direction of letting people > do fairly much whatever they want, Hummers, frequent air flights and > all, as long as we can provide the energy and ecological support to > let it happen. >
*[snipped]* *Yes, in this context "social change" means cutting back emissions and promoting alternative energy, and there may be components of "frugal morality" in that campaign. In the David vs. Clive debate, that "social change" is, shall we say, the unspoken Plan A, the agreed-upon best scenario. My question is, how does geoengineering, in this case SRM, get pushed forward as Plan B? Is there no better Plan B?* *Briefly, there is: the imbalance of the global carbon cycle comes partly from the pumping of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, but equally from depletion of global soil carbon. And unlike SRM, restoring soil carbon not only has no harmful side-effects, but offers manifold benefits. Isn't it puzzling that this debate is even taking place?* *Brian * -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
